Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32969672›Full record

ArticlePsychological review2021

Rejecting impulsivity as a psychological construct: A theoretical, empirical, and sociocultural argument.

Justin C Strickland, Matthew W Johnson

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

90 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Test-retest reliability for a social discounting of personal information task.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2026
    Article

30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Justin C StricklandDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0003-1077-0394
Matthew W JohnsonDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Funding

HUMAN BEHAVIORAL PHARMACOLOGY OF SUBSTANCE ABUSET32DA007209 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Eric C. Strain, Elise M Weerts · 1985 to 2026
$12.9M
Dose effects of nicotine: Behavioral economics of cigarette abuse liabilityR01DA042527 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI JOHNSON, MATTHEW WAYNE · 2016 to 2018
$2.1M
Development of a Prospective Memory Intervention to Reduce Drug Use and HIV RiskR01DA035277 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI JOHNSON, MATTHEW WAYNE · 2013 to 2018
$2.0M
Greenwashing cigarettes: Perceptual and behavioral evidence of inaccurate modified risk advertisingR01DA049814 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI MORAN, MEGHAN BRIDGID · 2020 to 2022
$1.4M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA035277NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA042527NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA049814NIDA NIH HHS T32 DA007209
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We demonstrate through theoretical, empirical, and sociocultural evidence that the concept of impulsivity fails the basic requirements of a psychological construct and should be rejected as such. Impulsivity (or impulsiveness) currently holds a central place in psychological theory, research, and clinical practice and is considered a multifaceted concept. However, impulsivity falls short of the theoretical specifications for hypothetical constructs by having meaning that is not compatible with psychometric, neuroscience, and clinical data. Psychometric findings indicate that impulsive traits and behaviors (e.g., response inhibition, delay discounting) are largely uncorrelated and fail to load onto a single, superordinate latent variable. Modern neuroscience has also failed to identify a specific and central neurobehavioral mechanism underlying impulsive behaviors and instead has found separate neurochemical systems and loci that contribute to a variety of impulsivity types. Clinically, these different impulsivity types show diverging and distinct pathways and processes relating to behavioral and psychosocial health. The predictive validity and sensitivity of impulsivity measures to pharmacological, behavioral, and cognitive interventions also vary based on the impulsivity type evaluated and clinical condition examined. Conflation of distinct personality and behavioral mechanisms under a single umbrella of impulsivity ultimately increases the likelihood of misunderstanding at a sociocultural level and facilitates misled hypothesizing and artificial inconsistencies for clinical translation. We strongly recommend that, based on this comprehensive evidence, psychological scientists and neuroscientists reject the language of impulsivity in favor of a specific focus on the several well-defined and empirically supported factors that impulsivity is purported to cover. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Indexed as

Impulsive BehaviorModels, PsychologicalHumansPersonalityPsychometricsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID32969672
PMCPMC8610097

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.